I would like to see those links, but they do not link correctly.

New scientist

Wired

Found them. What struck me as most relevant about either of the articles is from the Wired article that basically says, in the penultimate paragraph, that this finding doesn't necessarily mean anything because 1) there may be physical laws or phenomena that we do not yet understand governing the behaviour and 2) we know how a lattice works in our computer simulations - we do not know how a lattice might work if one were to physically exist, why should it act like anything we know?

However, it is a real possibility.

I think because it's meant to go along with their article, not to be watched on it's own.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27413&utm_campaign=youtubesuperstrongrobot

The details are pretty amazing though.

"The most impressive feat of strength comes from a ground bot nicknamed μTug. Although it weighs just 12 grams, it can drag a weight that's 2000 times heavier – "the same as you pulling around a blue whale", explains David Christensen – who is in the same lab."

For your daily dose of dafuq, I refer you to this: Schrödinger's cat caught on quantum film

From the article:
For Barnes, the device needed to be able to take cues from the human body. The lab designed a prosthesis that uses a technique called electromyography to pick up on electrical signals in the upper arm muscles. By tensing his biceps, Barnes controls a small motor that changes how tightly the prosthetic arm grips the drumstick and how quickly it moves, vital skills for a drummer.

The researchers then added another layer of complexity: a second, autonomous drumstick on the robot arm (see photo). This second stick, controlled via its own motor, uses a microphone and an accelerometer to sense the rhythm Barnes is playing, as well as music from any nearby musicians. An algorithm then produces a new beat with a complementary rhythm and melody, modelled on the music of jazz greats like John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk.

With this extra artificial intelligence, human and machine combine to make Barnes a kind of "superhuman drummer", Weinberg says.

>> ^Sagemind:

What does the bill actually say?
The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."
That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development.
Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?
More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.
"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721
-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html


I can pinpoint about when a woman got pregnant. The gestation period for a fetus is 10 months (I know pretty crazy huh...but it is). So 10 months ago from the point at which they gave birth and the fetus becomes a Human Being, that is when they have gotten pregnant.

It's interesting to me all this talk about weeks and months when "God" gives us a nice perfect line in which to judge these things. Birth. When you are born is when you cease to be a part of your mother and have to crawl out of the womb ready to join the workforce. So lets stop arguing about viability of the fetus...if Conservatives cared about what doctors had to say they would've paid attention in school. Life begins at Birth, fuck off.

What does the bill actually say?

"The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."

That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development."

Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?

"More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.

"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html

looks *dead at the host: http://www.newscientist.com/video/374671628001-magnetic-eruption.html

*geek *wtf

Article: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/12/one-minute-math-why-you-cant-comb-a-hairy-ball.html

>> ^Peroxide:

http://www.newscientist.com/articl
e/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


According to this study...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. These are those top 50 Companies

Table S1: Top 50 control-holders. Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the
threshold model, TM). Column indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in
the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE code starting with 65,66,67
belong to the financial sector.

Rank Economic actor name Country NACE code Network Cumul. network
position control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05%
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66%
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94%
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21%
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02%
6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55%
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02%
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25%
9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46%
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45%
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33%
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17%
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99%
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81%
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56%
16 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28%
17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98%
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64%
19 T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29%
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92%
21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56%
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16%
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72%
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26%
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79%
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUP PLC GB 6512 SCC 30.30%
27 INVESCO PLC GB 6523 SCC 30.82%
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415 SCC 31.32%
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24%
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69%
31 AVIVA PLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14%
32 SCHRODERS PLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57%
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00%
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43%
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82%
36 STANDARD LIFE PLC GB 6601 SCC 35.2%
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57%
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92%
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28%
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63%
41 ING GROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96%
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29%
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61%
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93%
45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25%
46 BNP PARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56%
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88%
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18%
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48%
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78%

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

>> ^raverman:

Don't worry... Space Spider will catch kitty
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/time-lap
se-tuesday-spiders-in-space.html


You should submit that.

Don't worry... Space Spider will catch kitty
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/time-lapse-tuesday-spiders-in-space.html